As far as we are concerned, open adoption isn’t all that complicated. We think it’s about cooperation and relationships. It’s serious about honoring children by making sure they have access to information and to the people they find interesting. Bottom line, we see it as a matter of simple decency—treating others the way we would want to be treated if we were in their place. Really, it’s not rocket science. Despite its simplicity, we find that misunderstandings of open adoption persist. That being the case, allow us to offer some clarifications. Let’s zero in on a few of the more common misunderstandings.
“Open adoption is a form of co-parenting.”
Open adoption is a far cry from co-parenting . In a co-parenting arrangement, parents share equivalent authority, roles, and access. None of these conditions fits for open adoption. First, birth relatives are involved as a result of the goodwill between the families, not as a matter of right. Second, the roles involved are very different. Adoptive parents are the parents, period. Day in and day out, they are charged with the responsibility of looking after the youngster. They are “Mom” and “Dad.” The role of birthparents is more difficult to describe; it is unique. If anything, it resembles the role of special adult friend or special aunt or uncle. Third, there is no equivalence in the amount of access involved. Detractors like to portray a birthmom lurking in the attic, monitoring conversations through the heat ducts, and biding time to make a dramatic and disapproving entrance. Against such a fantastic backdrop, the reality—perhaps a monthly, by-appointment dinner and a stroll through the park—is almost embarrassingly tame. Critics forget that birthfamilies, just like adoptive families, want a measure of emotional distance. Many of them set aside the prospect of adoption within their extended family because it struck them as “a little too much and a little too close.”
“Open adoption reduces adoptive parents to glorified babysitters.”
Some people complain, “In open adoption, you do all the hard work, pay all the bills for twenty years, and then the kids leave you.” Hmm, sounds like routine parenting, doesn’t it? Without realizing it, people who worry about this are tipping their hat to the importance of biology. They worry that its siren call is so powerful that it can easily cancel two decades of daily interaction. If biology is that powerful, we think it is better to work with it than to stand in its way. What is more, we’re not sure that the best reason to sign up for parenting is the idea that it will pay dividends in our old age. The joy of parenting is the opportunity to watch closely as an amazing young person develops into a unique and independent adult.
“All privacy is lost in open adoption.”
An especially frightening misunderstanding is the notion that there is no room for privacy in open adoption, that it completely exposes its participants. This worry needs to be approached with common sense. Certainly openness features a spirit of candor and transparency, but the sharing involved is purposeful and kept within the limits of common courtesy and basic decency. There is much that each family needs to know about the other if they are to work together in behalf of the child, but there is also a lot that does not need to be known. Healthy adoptive relationships feature reasonable and mutually respected boundaries.
“Open adoption is a perfect answer for untimely pregnancy.”
There are skeptics, and there are zealots, too. Some folks are so excited about open adoption that they promote it as an almost perfect solution to the problems of untimely pregnancy and infertility. Obviously, they are too enthused. Open adoption does not “solve” or “fix” either circumstance. Furthermore, some people simply are not cut out for participation in open adoption. We think it is important that open adoption not be oversold. Surely it holds potential, but it is neither perfect nor easy. In some circumstances there may be better alternatives. It is fair to say, however, that at least some of the time for some people, open adoption makes sense.
“Open adoption is a form of co-parenting.”
Open adoption is a far cry from co-parenting . In a co-parenting arrangement, parents share equivalent authority, roles, and access. None of these conditions fits for open adoption. First, birth relatives are involved as a result of the goodwill between the families, not as a matter of right. Second, the roles involved are very different. Adoptive parents are the parents, period. Day in and day out, they are charged with the responsibility of looking after the youngster. They are “Mom” and “Dad.” The role of birthparents is more difficult to describe; it is unique. If anything, it resembles the role of special adult friend or special aunt or uncle. Third, there is no equivalence in the amount of access involved. Detractors like to portray a birthmom lurking in the attic, monitoring conversations through the heat ducts, and biding time to make a dramatic and disapproving entrance. Against such a fantastic backdrop, the reality—perhaps a monthly, by-appointment dinner and a stroll through the park—is almost embarrassingly tame. Critics forget that birthfamilies, just like adoptive families, want a measure of emotional distance. Many of them set aside the prospect of adoption within their extended family because it struck them as “a little too much and a little too close.”
“Open adoption reduces adoptive parents to glorified babysitters.”
Some people complain, “In open adoption, you do all the hard work, pay all the bills for twenty years, and then the kids leave you.” Hmm, sounds like routine parenting, doesn’t it? Without realizing it, people who worry about this are tipping their hat to the importance of biology. They worry that its siren call is so powerful that it can easily cancel two decades of daily interaction. If biology is that powerful, we think it is better to work with it than to stand in its way. What is more, we’re not sure that the best reason to sign up for parenting is the idea that it will pay dividends in our old age. The joy of parenting is the opportunity to watch closely as an amazing young person develops into a unique and independent adult.
“All privacy is lost in open adoption.”
An especially frightening misunderstanding is the notion that there is no room for privacy in open adoption, that it completely exposes its participants. This worry needs to be approached with common sense. Certainly openness features a spirit of candor and transparency, but the sharing involved is purposeful and kept within the limits of common courtesy and basic decency. There is much that each family needs to know about the other if they are to work together in behalf of the child, but there is also a lot that does not need to be known. Healthy adoptive relationships feature reasonable and mutually respected boundaries.
“Open adoption is a perfect answer for untimely pregnancy.”
There are skeptics, and there are zealots, too. Some folks are so excited about open adoption that they promote it as an almost perfect solution to the problems of untimely pregnancy and infertility. Obviously, they are too enthused. Open adoption does not “solve” or “fix” either circumstance. Furthermore, some people simply are not cut out for participation in open adoption. We think it is important that open adoption not be oversold. Surely it holds potential, but it is neither perfect nor easy. In some circumstances there may be better alternatives. It is fair to say, however, that at least some of the time for some people, open adoption makes sense.
Alcohol and Drug Services 